Procedures for Reimbursement of General Aviation Operators and Service Providers in the Washington, DC Area, 58546-58569 [06-8250]

Agencies

• Office of the Secretary
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 4, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58546-58569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8250]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 331

[Docket OST-2006-25906]
RIN 2105-AD61


Procedures for Reimbursement of General Aviation Operators and 
Service Providers in the Washington, DC Area

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 30, 2005, President Bush signed into law the 
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 
the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriation Act, 
2006 (Pub.L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396, hereafter the Act, or the 2006 
Appropriation Act). Section 185 of the Act authorized the Department of 
Transportation to provide reimbursement to fixed-based general aviation 
operators and providers of general aviation ground support services at 
five metropolitan Washington, DC area airports, for the direct and 
incremental financial losses they incurred while the airports were 
closed due to Federal Government actions taken after the terrorist 
attacks on September 11, 2001. The airports are: Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport; College Park Airport in College Park, 
Maryland; Potomac Airfield in Fort Washington, Maryland; Washington 
Executive/Hyde Field in Clinton, Maryland; and Washington South Capitol 
Street Heliport in Washington, DC. A total of up to $17,000,000 was 
appropriated for this purpose. This proposed rule would establish the 
eligibility requirements and application procedures for those who may 
qualify for assistance under this statute.

DATES: Comments should be received by November 3, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should send comments to Docket Clerk, 
Docket OST-2006-25906, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, 
SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. We request that, in order to 
minimize burdens on the dockets staff, commenters send three copies of 
their comments to the docket. Commenters wishing to have their 
submissions acknowledged should include a stamped, self-addressed 
postcard with their comments. The Docket Clerk will date stamp the 
postcard and return it to the commenter. Comments will be available for 
inspection at the above address from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday. Comments also may be sent electronically to the Dockets 
Management System (DMS) at the following internet address: https://
dms.dot.gov/. Commenters who wish to file comments electronically 
should follow the instructions on the DMS Web site. Interested persons 
can also review comments through this same Web site.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Dann, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Office of General Counsel, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 
10102, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9154. Data sources to 
assist applicants in preparing portions of their applications are 
available at the Department of Transportation, Office of the 
Secretary's Web site at https://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/, 
under ``Programs.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following the terrorist attacks on the 
United States on September 11, 2001, general aviation activity in the 
Washington, DC metropolitan area was suspended. Five airports were most 
affected: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA); College Park 
Airport in College Park, Maryland; Potomac Airfield in Fort Washington, 
Maryland; Washington Executive/Hyde Field in Clinton, Maryland; and 
Washington South Capitol Street Heliport in Washington, DC. General 
aviation operations remain limited at DCA and the three Maryland 
airports, and the South Capitol Street Heliport is now used exclusively 
by the Washington DC Metropolitan Police. Because of the reduction in 
general aviation activity at these locations, the fixed-based operators 
and service providers that supported general aviation were also 
affected. In addition, some such entities have had to incur additional 
costs associated with new security regulations in order to keep their 
businesses functioning.
    Soon after the terrorist attacks, Congress enacted the Air 
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Public Law 107-42 
(Sept. 22, 2001) (the Stabilization Act). The Stabilization Act 
directed that compensation be provided to ``air carriers'' for the 
direct losses they incurred as a result of the Government's orders 
halting air traffic, and the incremental losses they incurred between 
September 11 and December 31, 2001, as a direct result of the terrorist 
attacks. Under this authority, approximately $4.6 billion has been 
distributed to qualifying carriers, providing them assistance as they 
sought to avoid bankruptcy and recover financially in the aftermath of 
September 11. Such carriers were also made eligible for loan guarantees 
under a different title of the Act. However, as noted, relief was 
limited in the statute to ``air carriers,'' a term defined at 49 U.S.C. 
40102. Because the fixed-based operators and service providers at issue 
here did not fall within that definition, they were not eligible for 
either compensation or loan guarantees under the Stabilization Act.
    In 2003, the United States House of Representatives Committee on 
Appropriations requested that the Department of Transportation prepare 
a report detailing the documented financial losses by holders of real 
property leases at the five affected

[[Page 58547]]

airports that were attributable to the Federal actions since September 
11, 2001. (House Report 108-243, July 30, 2003, p. 8.) The Committee 
stated that such a report would assist the Congress in considering 
``potential federal reimbursement for a portion of these unusual 
financial losses.'' In October, 2005, the Secretary of Transportation 
submitted to the Committee the requested report, which was entitled: 
Estimated Financial Losses to Selected General Aviation Entities in the 
Washington, DC Area Final Report (October 2005 DOT study). A copy of 
this Report has been placed into Docket 2006-25906.
    The October 2005 DOT study identified sixteen general aviation 
leaseholders at the five airports, and estimated the financial losses 
that each incurred during its study period (which ran from September 
11, 2001 to January 23, 2004) due to the Federal actions taken after 
the terrorist attacks. The estimates reflected the difference in net 
income between what the companies projected for the study period and 
the actual net income for that period, and included both losses in net 
income and one-time costs attributable directly to compliance with new 
restrictions or regulations resulting from the terrorist attacks. In 
formulating its estimates, the Department's consultant relied primarily 
on voluntary information provided by each entity, and while interviews 
were conducted to confirm the general reasonableness and consistency of 
the numbers provided, no independent analysis, audit or certification 
was conducted. Therefore, the October 2005 DOT study advised that these 
estimates were merely preliminary and meant solely to inform Congress 
in determining whether and in what amount to appropriate funds to 
reimburse these general aviation entities. The October 2005 DOT study 
also indicated that, if compensation were to be made available, ``the 
financial data establishing the basis for any payment, especially 
forecast revenue, cost and net income, should * * * be subject to a 
more rigorous verification regime.'' (Estimated Financial Losses to 
Selected General Aviation Entities in the Washington, DC Area Final 
Report, at fn. 3.)
    The total estimated financial losses for the period reviewed were 
$10,443,936, with more than half of that amount being reported for one 
firm, Signature Flight Support. The estimates were in current dollars 
and reflected no consideration for the time value of money.
    On November 30, 2005, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and 
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriation Act, 2006, became law. Section 185 
of the Act provides for the reimbursement of ``fixed-based general 
aviation operators and the providers of general aviation ground support 
services'' at the five cited airports for the ``direct and incremental 
financial losses incurred while such airports were closed to general 
aviation operations, or as of the date of enactment of this provision 
in the case of airports that have not reopened to such operations, by 
these operators and service providers solely due to actions of the 
Federal Government following the terrorist attacks on the United States 
that occurred on September 11, 2001.'' The Act provides up to $17 
million to reimburse these general aviation entities; however, it 
states that, of the $17 million provided, an amount not to exceed $5 
million, if necessary, is to be available on a pro rata basis to fixed-
based general aviation operators and the providers of general aviation 
ground support services located at the three Maryland airports: College 
Park Airport in College Park, Maryland; Potomac Airfield in Fort 
Washington, Maryland; and Washington Executive/Hyde Field in Clinton, 
Maryland.
    Section 185 further states that the appropriated funds included the 
cost of ``an independent verification regime;'' that no funds shall be 
obligated or distributed to such general aviation entities until an 
independent audit is completed; that losses incurred as the result of 
violations of law, or through fault or negligence of such entities or 
of third parties (including airports) are not eligible for 
reimbursement; and that the obligation and expenditure of funds are 
conditional upon full release of the United States Government for all 
claims for financial losses resulting from such actions.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 331.1 What is the purpose of this Part?

    This section states the proposed purpose of part 331, which is to 
carry out the statutory provisions of the Act with respect to 
compensating fixed-based general aviation operators and providers of 
general aviation ground support services at five metropolitan 
Washington, DC area airports.

Section 331.3 What do the terms used in this part mean?

    This definitions section proposes to incorporate terms from the Act 
or other existing sources. This section also proposes to define 
additional terms necessary to implement the procedures to provide 
reimbursement under the Act.
    Entities that meet the definition of a ``fixed-based general 
aviation operator'' or a ``provider of general aviation ground support 
services'' with operations at one or more of the five named airports on 
September 11, 2001 would be eligible under the plain statutory language 
to apply for reimbursement of eligible losses under the 2006 
Appropriation Act.
    The Department understands that a ``fixed based general aviation 
operator,'' (FBO), customarily refers to an entity based at a 
particular airport that provides services and support to general 
aviation, which may include fuel and oil, aircraft storage and tie-
down, airframe and engine maintenance, avionics repair, baggage 
handling, deicing, and the provision of air charter services. We expect 
that most, if not all, eligible FBOs will have been leaseholders 
identified in the October 2005 DOT study. The Department would 
tentatively further define a ``provider of general aviation ground 
support services'' as a non-FBO operating at an airport that supplies 
such or similar services exclusively or predominantly to support 
general aviation activities, extending as well to flight schools, 
security services, aircraft and avionics maintenance, etc. The 
reference to ``services'' in the statute would seem to preclude non-FBO 
entities from qualifying that provided only products to general 
aviation, e.g., a parts supplier.
    The Department notes that the October 2005 DOT study performed 
under House Report 108-243 was limited to ``holders of real property 
leases'' at the airports. Because the 2006 Appropriation Act used 
different language to describe the entities that were to be eligible 
for reimbursement, the Department believes that reimbursement for 
losses is not necessarily limited to only those sixteen entities that 
were identified in the October 2005 DOT study. As the Department 
expects that case-by-case determinations may be necessary, we propose 
that any entity that applies for reimbursement under the Program 
describe itself, the services it provides or provided, the airport or 
airports at which it provided those services, and certify that it meets 
the regulatory definitions, in order to facilitate an eligibility 
determination by the Department.
    We also propose common usage definitions for ``losses'' and 
``incurred,'' as we did in the regulations

[[Page 58548]]

implementing the Stabilization Act. See 67 FR 54062 (August 20, 2002). 
Thus, ``losses'' refer to something that is gone and cannot be 
recovered, and ``incurred'' means to become liable or subject to (as to 
incur debt). Applying these definitions, for example, a temporary loss 
that is recovered later, or is expected to be recovered later, would 
not be eligible for reimbursement.
    The Department proposes to define the statutory phrase ``direct and 
incremental losses'' to mean those losses that resulted from the 
Federal Government's closure of the five Washington area airports to 
general aviation operations. ``Direct and incremental losses'' would 
include losses incurred on September 11, 2001 through the end of the 
eligibility reimbursement period for each airport. The Department 
proposes to read ``direct and incremental losses'' as a single category 
because of the difficulty in apportioning losses between direct losses 
and incremental losses while an airport was closed.
    As discussed in more detail in Section 331.13, the eligibility 
period is different for each of the five Washington area airports. For 
the reasons set forth in Section 331.13, the Department is proposing 
that the term ``closed'' or ``closure'' be defined so as to carry out 
the intent of Congress in establishing the eligible period for 
reimbursement for each airport. For Washington National Airport, 
``closed'' or ``closure'' would mean the time between September 11, 
2001 and the date that general aviation operations were generally 
permitted to resume. For the Washington South Capitol Street Heliport, 
which was closed at the date that Section 185 of the Act was enacted, 
``closed'' or ``closure'' would mean the time between September 11, 
2001 and November 30, 2005. For the three Maryland airports, because 
general aviation operations resumed more gradually, ``closed'' or 
``closure'' would mean the time between September 11, 2001 and the date 
that transient traffic was generally permitted to return.
    Finally, the Department proposes that, for purposes of determining 
eligibility under the Act, ``forecast'' should be defined as an 
objective and reliable projection of the revenue that would have been 
earned and the expenses that would have been incurred during the 
eligible reimbursement period had the attacks of September 11, 2001 not 
occurred. The Department believes that applicants either prepared such 
forecasts before September 11, 2001, or have the ability to prepare or 
reconstruct such reasonable forecasts based on financial records 
generated and maintained in the ordinary course of business.

Section 331.5 Who may apply for reimbursement under this part?

    This part specifies the applicants eligible for reimbursement under 
the Act. The Department proposes that applicants submitting claims 
under the Act for losses incurred at two or more airports complete 
separate applications. For example, if an applicant provided fixed-
based general aviation or general aviation ground support at Ronald 
Reagan Washington National Airport and College Park Airport in College 
Park, Maryland, then the applicant would complete two applications.

Section 331.7 What losses will be reimbursed?

    Under subsection (a) the Department proposes the method that would 
be applied to determine reimbursement. The Department proposes that 
losses should be measured under the same general approach utilized in 
the October 2005 DOT study, i.e., the difference in net income between 
what an eligible applicant forecast (or would have reasonably expected) 
for the applicable reimbursement period, and the actual net income it 
earned for that period. The Department deemed this ``lost profits'' 
approach to be the most reasonable one for purposes of its October 2005 
study, and it was the same approach that was utilized in providing 
compensation to air carriers under the Air Transportation Safety and 
System Stabilization Act. Thus, the Department has had considerable 
experience in analyzing and approving compensation claims under such a 
regime. Moreover, since Congress likely relied on the analysis and 
estimates made by the Department and the Department's consultant in the 
October 2005 DOT study when it enacted the 2006 Appropriation Act, this 
approach would seem most consistent with Congress' expectations 
regarding the cost to be incurred for the program.
    Under subsection (b) the Department proposes that if applicants 
make a claim for extraordinary, non-recurring, or unusual adjustments, 
they would also be requested to demonstrate that such losses were fully 
attributable to the Federal Government's actions, that the claim be 
made in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles 
(GAAP), that the expenses of the loss were fully borne within the 
applicable statutory reimbursement period, that the charge was not 
discretionary in nature, and that reimbursement would not be 
duplicative of other relief. The Department notes that it appears that 
Congress intended one-time costs that were necessarily incurred in 
order to comply with Federal Government security requirements to be 
reimbursable, and we propose that they be. However, under the Air 
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act compensation 
program, a number of applicants sought reimbursement for various types 
of extraordinary, non-recurring, or unusual charges, which DOT 
generally found not to be eligible. For example, the Department 
typically rejected claims for impairment of long-lived assets, relying 
in part on guidelines published by the Financial Accounting Standards 
Board (FASB) recognizing that ``impairment of long-lived assets as a 
result of the September 11 events would in many cases be impossible to 
measure separately from impairment due to the general economic slowdown 
that was generally acknowledged to be under way.'' (Emerging Issues 
Task Force Meeting Minutes, at 4.) Therefore the Department is 
proposing that extraordinary, non-recurring, or unusual adjustments be 
separately explained by each applicant in order to determine 
eligibility. Each such claim would prompt a case-by-case review to 
determine whether it should be reimbursed under the Act, using the same 
type of analysis that was employed in the Air Transportation Safety and 
System Stabilization Act cases.
    Subsection (c) proposes that temporary losses recovered after the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or that applicants expect to 
recover, should not be eligible for reimbursement.
    The Department proposes in subsection (d) that if an applicant 
engaged in any aviation or non-aviation income-producing activities 
after September 11, 2001, such income should mitigate its losses and so 
reduce reimbursement. If, for example, an applicant after September 11, 
2001 contracted out its services for some of its maintenance and 
avionics repair work to other carriers or at other airports, that 
income would serve to reduce its reimbursement under this Act.
    Similarly, the Department proposes in subsection (e) that so-called 
``cost savings'' cannot be claimed and manipulated into a basis for 
additional reimbursement. Such ``cost savings'' arise from instances in 
which an applicant achieves after September 11 a reduction in actual 
expenses as compared to its forecast expenses in expense categories it 
claims were not

[[Page 58549]]

affected by the Federal Government's closure of airports. We assume 
that potentially eligible general aviation entities would, like most 
businesses, try to maintain strict controls on expenditures, especially 
in cases in which revenue shortfalls are being anticipated (such as 
after the terrorist attacks). We perceive this as simply good business 
practice, so that these savings should reduce reimbursement needs. See 
67 FR 18473 (Apr. 16, 2002); Federal Express Corp. v. Mineta, 434 F.3d 
597 (DC Cir., 2006).
    The Department proposes in subsection (f) that applicants not be 
reimbursed for the lost time value of money. As noted above, the 
October 2005 DOT study questioned whether reimbursement pursuant to 
Section 185 should account for the time value of money, through payment 
of interest on lost profits for the period of time the funds were not 
available for use. The Department has tentatively determined that, as a 
legal matter, it is precluded from payment of interest under the 
circumstances present here. See, e.g., United States v. Alcea Bank of 
Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 49 (1951) (noting that, ``[i]t is the 
`traditional rule' that interest on claims against the United States 
cannot be recovered in the absence of an express provision to the 
contrary in the relevant statute or contract''). We are aware of no 
exceptions that would apply here so as to make such payment here 
allowable.
    The Department also proposes to exclude lobbying fees and 
attorneys' fees in subsection (g). The October 2005 DOT study did not 
address the compensability of reasonable lobbying and attorney's fees. 
However, a question has arisen as to whether the program should provide 
reimbursement for those professional service fees, such as those 
incurred in seeking and obtaining the legislative relief ultimately 
embodied in Section 185. The Department proposes that such fees not be 
eligible for reimbursement. We note initially that a Federal statute 
(31 U.S.C 1352) prohibits using appropriated funds to compensate 
lobbying costs for specific activities. To implement this provision, 
the Department adopted regulations as generally prescribed by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), that broadly limit the 
expenditure of appropriated funds by recipients of ``a Federal 
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement'' for lobbying costs. 
See 49 CFR 20.100. While ``reimbursement'' is not included among the 
covered Federal actions, the Department believes that it should be 
here, in order to achieve consistency with the spirit and intent of 
these provisions, and therefore would not reimburse with appropriated 
funds expenditures for such specified activities. Accordingly, such 
costs would need to be broken out and excluded from an applicant's 
claim.
    In order to assist the Department evaluate the reasonableness of 
claims it receives from applicants, it proposes in subsection (h) that 
the applicants' calculations of revenues, expenses and income be based 
on financial documents customarily maintained by the applicants in the 
course of conducting business.

Section 331.9 What funds will the Department distribute under this 
part?

    The Department proposes to disburse up to the full amount of 
reimbursement it determines is payable to applicants under section 185 
of the Act.

Section 335.11 What are the limits on reimbursement to operators or 
providers?

    Congress has limited reimbursements to losses incurred as a direct 
result of actions by the Federal Government and to losses incurred 
within a finite period of time. As discussed above, even if losses may 
be properly reported under generally accepted accounting principles 
(GAAP) within that period, if they are actually experienced over a 
longer or different period of time, and/or if they are not fully 
attributable to the Federal Government's actions to close airports, 
they may not be properly reimbursable under the Act.
    The Department proposes in subsection (a) to reimburse applicants 
subject to the subpart C set-aside for eligible operators or providers 
at College Park Airport in College Park, Maryland; Potomac Airfield in 
Fort Washington, Maryland; and Washington Executive/Hyde Field in 
Clinton, Maryland. The Department further proposes that the amount 
available to each applicant be subject to the Department's cost of 
independently verifying claims for reimbursement, as explained in 
Section 331.17.
    In subsection (b), the Department proposes that, if an overpayment 
is made to an applicant for any reason, the Federal Government would 
collect the overpayment amount in accordance with the Federal Claims 
Collection Act of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).
    Section 185 requires that, as a condition for payment, parties 
provide a full release to the United States from all claims for 
financial losses resulting from actions of the Federal Government 
following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Department 
proposes in subsection (c) to utilize a standard release form.

Section 331.13 What is the eligible reimbursement period under this 
part?

    Section 185 provides funds to reimburse GA entities for eligible 
losses ``incurred while such airports were closed to general aviation 
operations, or, if an airport has not reopened to such operations, as 
of the date of enactment of Public Law 109-115'' (i.e., November 30, 
2005). Because four of the five the airports in question were subject 
to differing levels of restriction in general aviation activity over 
time, the language ``while such airports were closed to general 
aviation operations'' requires the Department to interpret whether the 
eligible period is that during which the airports were closed to all 
general aviation operations, or to some or any general aviation 
operations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The Department's GRA Study considered as ``direct losses'' 
those losses incurred during the period of ``full'' closure--through 
March, 2002--and as ``incremental losses'' those losses incurred 
after the reopening of the airports that were nonetheless 
attributable to the Federal actions taken as a result of the 
September 11 terrorist attacks. The language of section 185 limits 
reimbursement to the direct and incremental losses incurred while 
the airports were ``closed'' to GA operations, leaving unsettled 
whether Congress was altering the time periods for which 
calculations of loss would be made from the approach taken in the 
Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As background, the period of closure for all five airports began on 
September 11, 2001, when immediately after the terrorist attacks, the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prohibited all aircraft 
operations within the territorial airspace of the U.S. Exceptions were 
made only for certain military, law enforcement, and emergency-related 
aircraft operations. This general prohibition was lifted in part on 
September 13, 2001.
    Due to continuing security concerns in Washington, DC airspace, 
restrictions remained in place on aircraft operations in the DC 
metropolitan area. On October 4, 2001, limited air carrier operations 
were permitted to resume at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 
(``DCA''), but general aviation activity there and elsewhere in the 
metropolitan area was limited to repositioning of aircraft and 
operations under limited waivers. Under Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) 1/3354 
of December 19, 2001, the FAA continued with minor exceptions the total 
prohibition on all Part 91 flight operations within 15-miles of the 
Washington Monument.
    At DCA, official State and Federal government operations, and other 
flights operating under limited waivers, generated about 20 general 
aviation flights per month through 2004. These

[[Page 58550]]

flights required special security arrangements, including pilot and 
passenger background checks and the presence of law enforcement 
personnel on board. Because of these restrictions, much DCA general 
aviation activity migrated to Washington Dulles Airport, Baltimore--
Washington International Airport, or other facilities. On May 25, 2005, 
the Department of Homeland Security proposed a broader reopening of DCA 
to various GA operations, including corporate aircraft and charter 
flights. Up to 48 GA flights per day would be allowed, although only 
for operations from authorized originating ``gateway'' airports. 
Operations were subject to stringent security measures, including: 
Advanced registration and qualification of operators and crews; 
Transportation Security Administration (``TSA'') inspection of crews 
and passengers; submission of manifests 24 hours in advance of the 
flight; enhanced background checks; and the presence of a law 
enforcement officer on board each flight. On October 18, 2005, flights 
under the new rules resumed at DCA.
    The FAA's Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 94, issued as 
a Final Rule on February 19, 2002 (67 FR 7537), set out procedures 
under which College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, and Washington 
Executive/Hyde Field (the ``three Maryland airports'' ) could be 
partially reopened to general aviation traffic. SFAR 94 permitted the 
three Maryland airports to develop security procedures that, if 
approved by the FAA Administrator, would allow pilots that had been 
based there to resume some operations. These procedures encompassed 
such matters as identification of an airport security coordinator, 
maintenance of a record of all individuals and aircrafts authorized to 
operate from the airport, implementation of robust security monitoring 
and security awareness procedures, etc. Although SFAR 94 allowed the 
resumption of some operations under tightly controlled security 
requirements, based pilots were still unable to conduct pattern 
operations or flights to another affected airport. In addition, 
transient aircraft operations continued to be prohibited. Based on SFAR 
94, and the FAA's NOTAM 2/1257 that was published on February 14, 2002, 
College Park and Potomac airports were able to reopen to limited 
resident GA operations on February 23, 2002. Washington Executive/Hyde 
Field followed on March 2, 2002.
    SFAR 94 was reissued on February 14, 2003 for an additional two 
years, and, on February 10, 2005, new rules were issued that authorized 
the resumption of transient operations on a restricted basis. 70 FR 
7150. Under these restrictions, pilots were required to: Submit 
background information on themselves, including fingerprints; to 
undergo a terrorist threat assessment, criminal records check, and 
check of his or her FAA record for certain violations; and be briefed 
on procedures for operating at the airport. Further, pilots who wished 
to operate aircraft from or to any of the three Maryland airports were 
required to file a flight plan in advance, obtain air traffic control 
clearances and a discrete transponder code, and follow the arrival and 
departure procedures that were required by the FAA. See 49 CFR Part 
1562. The flights into the three Maryland airports under these 
restricted procedures began after these rules became effective on 
February 13, 2005.
    The restrictions on general aviation operations in Washington 
airspace have obviously translated into a significantly lower volume of 
operations than had been in place prior to the terrorist attacks. At 
DCA, in the year 2000, there had been 60,225 GA operations. In 
contrast, the Department of Homeland Security stated that, between 
January of 2003 and March of 2004, there had been a total of 146.
    The October 2005 DOT study found that local operations at College 
Park Airport fell from 19,657 in 2001 to 2,500 in 2002 and 2,000 in 
2003. Itinerant operations were reported as dropping from 4,800 in 2001 
to zero in both 2002 and 2003.
    At Potomac Airfield, the October 2005 DOT study reported local and 
itinerant operations as staying constant for the three years, but 
considered that such data ``may not be totally accurate because they 
show exactly the same number of operations each year.''
    Estimated Financial Losses to Selected General Aviation Entities in 
the Washington, DC Area Final Report, at fn. 11.
    At Washington Executive/Hyde Field, the October 2005 DOT study 
found that local operations were constant at 34,580 in 2001 and 2002 
(which conclusion may suffer from the same inaccuracy in reporting as 
affected Potomac Airfield) but fell to 6,970 in 2003. As to itinerant 
operations, the October 2005 DOT study reported a fall from 1,900 in 
2001 to 30 in 2002 and 10 in 2003.
    The Washington South Capitol Street Heliport is now closed to GA 
operations. According to the Department's consultant, the Washington 
Metropolitan Police Department helicopter operation unit is now the 
exclusive user of the heliport.
    The reduction in traffic volumes has translated into financial 
losses for the fixed-based general aviation operators and providers of 
general aviation ground support services at the airports. The October 
2005 DOT study reported financial losses for the general aviation 
leaseholders at the airports as being most severe in 2002, cumulating 
at almost $5.3 million. However, the losses extended as well into 2003, 
cumulating at over $3.4 million and into the early part of 2004.
    In construing the language of section 185 as to the period each of 
the five airports was ``closed to general aviation operations,'' one 
approach would be for the Department to consider the period of closure 
to run until the first general aviation operations were permitted (on 
other than the special waiver, highly restricted basis in effect 
immediately after September 11, 2001). For DCA, that would be until 
October 18, 2005; for College Park and Potomac airports it would be 
until February 23, 2002; and for Washington Executive/Hyde Field, it 
would be until March 2, 2002. (For Washington South Capitol Street 
Heliport, it seems clear that the period of reimbursement eligibility 
would run for the full period from September 11, 2001 to November 30, 
2005.) Another option would be to consider the three Maryland airports 
``closed'' until the airports were more broadly reopened to include 
transient traffic, if even on a restricted basis, i.e. February 13, 
2005. A final alternative would be to interpret the language to extend 
the time to the full September 11, 2001 to November 30, 2005 period, on 
the basis that some of the pre-September 11 general aviation traffic 
had not returned due to the restrictions, and so the airports might be 
thought of as not being ``fully open'' even to the present day.
    The Department has tentatively determined that the respective 
periods of eligibility should be from September 11, 2001 until October 
18, 2005 for DCA; until February 13, 2005 for the three Maryland 
airports, although limited for Washington Executive/Hyde Field as 
discussed below; and until November 30, 2005 for the Washington South 
Capitol Street Heliport. Comments on these proposed timeframes are 
welcomed. The following chart sets forth the proposed periods of 
eligibility for reimbursement:

[[Page 58551]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Period of eligibility for reimbursement
                Airport                -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Begin date                            End date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Reagan Washington National       September 11, 2001.................  October 18, 2005.
 Airport.
College Park Airport in College Park,   September 11, 2001.................  February 13, 2005.
 Maryland.
Potomac Airfield in Fort Washington,    September 11, 2001.................  February 13, 2005.
 Maryland.
Washington Executive/Hyde Field in      September 11, 2001.................  May 16, 2002.
 Clinton, Maryland.                     September 29, 2002.................  February 13, 2005.
Washington South Capitol St. Heliport   September 11, 2001.................  November 30, 2005.
 in Washington, D.C..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In so proposing, we considered that Congress must not, at the time 
it enacted section 185, considered all five of the airports to still be 
``closed.'' If it did, it would simply have provided that the period 
for reimbursement would extend through the date the statute was 
enacted. To give meaning to the phrase ``while closed to general 
aviation operations'' in the Act, at least one of the airports must 
have been thought of as having reopened prior to the date of enactment. 
Of the remaining two approaches, we have tentatively decided to use the 
February 13, 2005 date for the three Maryland airports, rather than the 
alternative dates in 2002. The GA entities potentially eligible for 
reimbursement at the three Maryland airports continued to sustain 
serious financial losses well past the dates that the airports were 
reopened for some resident based operations, and it seems inconsistent 
with the clear remedial purpose of section 185 to restrict 
reimbursement only for losses incurred by these entities through 
February or March of 2002. Moreover, given these continuing financial 
impacts, it seemed inequitable to permit reimbursements at DCA over a 
four year period, but restrict such reimbursements at the three 
Maryland airports for less than six months. And, although restrictions 
continue at the three Maryland airports, they do as well at DCA, and 
similar treatment among them would seem to be best achieved by using 
the February 13, 2005 and October 18, 2005 dates.
    The Department notes that section 185 also provides that losses 
incurred as a result of violations of law, or through fault or 
negligence, of such operators and service providers or of third parties 
(including airports) are not eligible for reimbursement. In this 
connection, the Department understands that Washington Executive 
Airport/Hyde Field was reclosed on May 17, 2002, because of a security 
violation, and not reopened again until September 28, 2002. See 70 FR 
45256 (Aug. 4, 2005). The Department therefore tentatively believes 
that that period must be excluded from the reimbursement calculus, only 
for Washington Executive Airport/Hyde Field. The Department also 
believes that Potomac Airfield was closed from November 1 to December 
16, 2005 for a violation of its security program. However, because that 
period would be outside the tentative reimbursement period of September 
11, 2001 to February 13, 2005, reimbursements under this program would 
not be affected. The Department would welcome comments on this issue, 
particularly as to whether these exclusions should extend to other 
periods or situations.

Section 331.15 How will other grants, subsidies, or incentives be 
treated by the Department?

    The Department understands that Potomac Airfield, College Park 
Airport, and Washington Executive Airport/Hyde Field, at least, 
received Federal grants under the Airport Improvement Program to 
reimburse them for the cost of operations and capital improvements 
associated with implementing security programs. State and local 
authorities may have provided grants as well. The Department is 
proposing that any applicants who received, directly or indirectly, 
post-September 11 grants report them as revenues, because such grants 
should have the effect of reducing reimbursable losses. The Department 
is also proposing to add a question on receipt of any such grants in 
the Background and Eligibility Form to ensure proper focus on this 
issue.

Section 331.17 How will the Department verify and audit claims under 
this part?

    This part proposes the method by which the Department would handle 
verification and auditing of claims. It is clear that Congress intended 
that these appropriated funds be used carefully and responsibly to 
reimburse only eligible entities for their eligible losses. To that 
end, section 185 would provide funds for an ``independent verification 
regime,'' and would require that an independent audit be completed 
before funds were distributed to eligible general aviation entities. 
Accordingly, the Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was 
consulted as to how to most efficiently and effectively implement this 
mandate. In part because there may be a wide range in the dollar amount 
of claims, we are proposing, with OIG concurrence, a flexible approach 
to achieve Congress's objectives. First, all applicants would be 
required to certify the accuracy and completeness of their claims, 
under penalty of law. The Department has considerable experience with 
such certification requirements, can refer suspected violations to the 
Department of Justice, and itself has an enforcement program under 
authority of the Program Fraud and Civil Penalties Act (31 U.S.C. 3801 
note, Pub. L. 99-509; 49 CFR Part 31). For verification purposes, 
applicants would also be required to retain all financial records for 
the period covered by their claim, as well as all data used in support 
of their claim (including actual monthly result data from 1999 
forward).
    Department staff including attorneys, accountants, and analysts, 
who have extensive experience in reviewing the financial data of 
aviation firms, would initially review each claim in detail, contacting 
the individual applicants and consulting with OIG as questions arise in 
order to verify the accuracy of the information provided. Larger 
claims, and any questioned claims, would be subject to individual 
audits. The Department proposes that this auditing process should be 
flexible. Where an audit is warranted, the Department would forward the 
claim to either the OIG or an independent auditor. Claims believed to 
be fraudulent would be referred to the Department of Justice for 
possible criminal or civil enforcement actions The Department believes 
that this process, relying on the audit capabilities of the OIG and/or 
independent auditors, and the enforcement capabilities of both DOT and 
the Department of Justice, would meet Congress' intent that only 
meritorious claims be reimbursed.
    Under section 185, expenses necessitated by independent 
verification and auditing activities may be paid with funds 
appropriated in the Act. While the Department does not anticipate that 
the verification activities performed by its analysts would necessitate 
payment

[[Page 58552]]

from the appropriated funds, the Department recognizes that the costs 
of an audit, particularly for larger claims, could be considerable. 
Therefore, the Department is proposing to retain the flexibility to 
recover the costs of audits from the amount of reimbursement that 
eligible applicants would have received if their claims did not 
necessitate audits in the first place. For example, if the cost to 
audit a questioned claim of $100,000 is $5,000, then the applicant 
would receive $95,000 in reimbursement once the Department determined 
that the payment was appropriate.

Section 331.19 Who will approve reimbursement once an application has 
been received and a claim has been verified and/or audited?

    This part proposes to give the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 
International Affairs authority to determine eligibility and authorize 
reimbursement under the Act. Expertise on aviation policy resides with 
the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. This 
official has administered similar programs and is supported by a 
professional staff of aviation analysts and economists who are 
knowledgeable on such matters.

Subpart B--Application Procedures

Section 331.21 What information must operators or providers submit in 
their applications for reimbursement?

    In order to calculate and support a reimbursement claim, the 
Department proposes that an applicant complete the form which is found 
in Appendix A and submit the information it requires, including 
eligibility information and a summary calculation of the financial data 
supporting an applicant's claim for reimbursement, as shown in the 
following table (which is incorporated into Appendix A):

                                                                     Financial Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Column A                      Column B                      Column C
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Pre 9-11-01 Forecast or
                                                                 after-the-fact estimate for     Actual results for the        Column A minus Column B
                                                                    the eligible period*            eligible period*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 1--Total Operating Revenues..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 2--Total Operating Expenses..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 3--Total Operating Income or (Loss)......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 4--Non-operating Revenue.................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 5--Non-operating Expenses................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 6--Non-operating income(loss)............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total--Line 3 plus line 6.................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department proposes in the Background and Eligibility Form to 
require the submission of an applicant's profit and loss statements, or 
such financial records generated as a routine matter for the use of 
management, for the years 1999 through 2005. Similarly, the Department 
proposes to require the submission of actual forecasts that applicants 
prepared for both these baseline periods and for any part of the 
reimbursement periods. The Department further proposes that, where 
appropriate, after-the-fact forecasts should be allowed. After-the-fact 
forecasts are discussed in more detail under subsection (f) of this 
section.
    All financial records submitted in support on an application would 
be subject to the same certification requirement as the other 
information that is submitted through the Background and Eligibility 
Form. These data would enable the Department to establish baseline 
business trends and forecast experience for applicants prior to the 
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which would be used as benchmarks 
to test the reasonableness of the applicants' reimbursement claims.
    The Department would use the applicant's actual and forecast 
results for the appropriate reimbursement period, together with such 
sources as macroeconomic data, individualized applicant business trend 
information, and the applicant's explanations, to make its 
determinations on the payment of claims.
    In calculating their revenues and expenses, the Department proposes 
that applicants utilize already existing financial data, supplemented 
as necessary by footnotes or explanations pertinent to the 
reimbursement application. Financial schedules, such as income 
statements, statements of operations, forecasts of operating results, 
budget documents or other similar information, may be used as the 
reference sources for completing the table in Appendix A. The 
Department suggests that these documents be a starting point under the 
assumption that most businesses maintain financial statements as a 
routine part of doing business, or for other reasons such as income tax 
preparation, loan applications, or contract negotiations. The 
Department believes that use of these documents, rather than requiring 
the completion of that detailed new forms, would facilitate the 
reimbursement process, especially for the smaller companies typically 
engaged in fewer activities.
    As the eligibility periods, for the most part, begin and end on 
days other than the first or last days of the month, quarter or year, 
the Department proposes in subsection (b) that data from already 
existing financial statements would be adjusted, on a pro-rata basis, 
to comply with the eligibility periods.
    The Department anticipates that some applicants may have prepared 
multiple forecasts for the same time period of time. Therefore, the 
Department proposes in subsection (c) that, if multiple forecasts were 
prepared, applicants utilize the one most recently approved, prior to 
September 11, 2001, so long as it was otherwise objective and reliable.
    In subsection (d), the Department proposes that information 
provided by applicants for use in the October 2005 DOT study should not 
be merely recited for purposes of the application. While

[[Page 58553]]

the October 2005 DOT study noted that the losses it reported were 
likely to ``reasonably approximate'' the general aviation leaseholder's 
total losses (at least through January 23, 2004), it also advised that 
the financial data establishing the basis for a payment should ``be 
subject to a more rigorous verification regime.'' The Department 
proposes that applicants not simply rely on the estimates as then 
reported; if they do, the Department would have the right to reject 
their claim or forward it for full verification follow-up, including 
audit. Applicants who reiterate the losses reported in the October 2005 
DOT study should make fully transparent the bases for those estimates, 
and provide a basis for testing the reasonableness of the estimates by 
supplying supporting data.
    In subsection (e) the Department proposes that failure to complete 
the required information constitutes grounds for a rejection. This 
subsection would adhere to Congress's desire that the appropriated 
funds be expended prudently. The proposed language in subsection (e) 
leaves the Department discretion in determining whether or not the 
missing information warrants a rejection. Subsection (e) also seeks to 
clarify that the burden to substantiate claims should rest with 
applicants and not the Department.
    Subsection (f) proposes to allow the use of ``after-the-fact'' 
forecasts. If pre-September 11, 2001 forecasts were not prepared at 
all, or prepared for less than the full reimbursement period, the rule 
would require applicants to make a good faith effort to quantify their 
expected operating results for the part of the reimbursement period not 
covered by its actual forecasts. The Department expects that not all of 
the fixed-based general aviation operators and providers of general 
aviation ground support services routinely forecasted projected 
revenues and expenses, (and, for those that did, they may have done so 
only in a rough or summary ``year-end'' fashion that would not permit 
ready calculations of losses due to September 11-related events). 
Further, the losses eligible for reimbursement here can extend over 
several years, for which reliable forecasts may not be available, and 
even when firms utilize advanced forecasting methods, there is 
necessarily a range of reasonableness in any such exercise that makes 
precise determinations of loss impossible. However, the Department 
believes that Congress readily understood that precise calculations of 
losses cannot be practically obtained, and that good-faith, carefully 
considered estimates would need to be used in determining losses, with 
those estimates subject to independent verification and audit to 
prevent overreaching and fraud.
    In subsection (g), the Department proposes that the Background and 
Eligibility Form, along with supporting financial documents, be 
certified as having been prepared under the supervision of the 
applicant's President, Chief Executive Officer, or Chief Operating 
Officer, and as being true and accurate to the best of his or her 
knowledge. Subsection (g) further proposes that applicants acknowledge 
in their certifications that the submission of false or deceptive data 
is punishable under law by fine and/or imprisonment.
    To assist the Department with verification of claims, and to 
facilitate any necessary audits, the Department proposes in subsection 
(h) that applicants retain all materials that they relied upon to 
establish their claim for reimbursable losses.
    The Department proposes under subsection (i) to seek information on 
other specific types of expenses, including mitigating expenses, 
lobbying expenses, and special expenses.
    In subsection (j), the Department proposes that if an applicant 
believes the release by the Department to the public of information 
provided by the applicant would cause substantial harm to the 
applicant's competitive position, the applicant may request that the 
Department hold such submissions confidential. In preference to 
``blanket'' requests, confidentiality requests should be specific to 
particular data submitted, as it is very unlikely that all submitted 
data could cause competitive harm if released to the public.

Section 331.23 In what format must applications be submitted?

    The Department proposes in subsection (a) that the Background and 
Eligibility Form found at Appendix A be submitted in hardcopy format 
and, if possible, electronic format. The Department also proposes to 
make the Background and Eligibility Form available in electronic 
format.
    In order to facilitate the review and manipulation of financial 
data for verification purposes within the Department, subsection (b) 
proposes that supporting financial records be submitted in electronic 
format.
    Under subsection (c), the Department proposes that faxes and e-
mails not be accepted because of the difficulties they create in 
handling large volumes of documents.

Section 331.25 To what address must operators or providers send their 
applications?

    In order to expedite the timely receipt and review of applications, 
the Department is proposing in subsection (b) that applications be 
submitted via an express package service (e.g., Federal Express, DHL, 
UPS). Alternatively, applicants may wish to hand deliver applications 
to the Department. The Department would make arrangements to receive 
such packages in a method that would be consistent with current 
Departmental office security procedures.
    The Department proposes that the address stated in the rule be 
mandatory. Accordingly, the Department proposes in subsection (c) to 
not accept applications sent elsewhere.

Section 331.27 When are applications due under this part?

    Reimbursement is expected to provide potential applicants, 
particularly small entities, with significant relief. The Department 
expects that most, if not all, potential applicants are aware of the 
reimbursement available under this rule, and that they are in a 
position to quickly comply with its requirements in order to expedite 
their reimbursement payments. The Department would take steps to post 
all relevant information on its Web site and coordinate with the 
management at the five airports to ensure that all potential applicants 
are promptly advised of the issuance of the final rule. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Department proposes to expedite the time 
requirement for submitting applications. We believe that a period of 30 
calendar days from the date of publication of the final rule provides 
sufficient time to complete and submit an application. The Department 
welcomes comment from potential applicants on the sufficiency of this 
proposed period.

Subpart C--Set-Aside for Operators or Providers at Certain Airports

Section 331.31 What funds are available to applicants under this 
subpart?

    The 2006 Appropriation Act provides that, from the full $17 million 
appropriated, an amount not to exceed $5 million shall be available on 
a pro-rata basis, if necessary, to fixed-based general aviation 
operators and providers of general aviation ground support services at 
the three Maryland airports--College Park, Potomac Airfield, and 
Washington Executive/Hyde Field. The Department tentatively construes 
this language as necessitating a separate

[[Page 58554]]

totaling of the eligible losses incurred at these three airports.

Section 331.33 Which operators and providers are eligible for the set-
aside under this subpart?

    The Department reads the plain language of the Act to restrict 
eligibility under this subpart to fixed-based general aviation 
operators and providers of general aviation ground support services at 
the three Maryland airports--College Park, Potomac Airfield, and 
Washington Executive/Hyde Field.

Section 331.35 What is the basis upon which operators and providers 
will be reimbursed through the set-aside under this subpart?

    For the $5 million set-aside for the three Maryland airports, the 
Department proposes to apply the same procedures set forth in subpart B 
of this part. The Department reads section 185 of the Act to require an 
additional procedure if total eligible losses at the three Maryland 
airports exceed $5 million. In the event that eligible losses at the 
three Maryland airports total more than $5 million, the Department 
proposes that a proportionate amount should be paid to each eligible 
entity. For the reasons set forth in Section 331.17, the Department 
proposes to deduct from an applicant's reimbursement amount the cost of 
any independent audit associated with a questioned claim, before 
distributing funds to the applicant.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    This NPRM is nonsignificant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 
and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures. The NPRM proposes procedures to provide reimbursement to 
eligible applicants from funds appropriated by Congress. The Department 
administers a number of programs entailing similar procedures. This 
NPRM therefore does not represent a significant departure from existing 
regulations and policy. Furthermore, once implemented, this rule would 
have only minimal cost impacts on regulated parties.

Federalism

    This rule does not directly affect States, the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or the distribution of power 
among the national government and the States, such that consultation 
with States and local governments is required under Executive Order 
13132.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department certifies that this rule would not have significant 
economic effects on a substantial number of small entities. In the 
aggregate, the cost among all applicants for gathering information and 
submitting an application should range from $2,501 to $5,003.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains information collection requirements subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, specifically the application 
documents that fixed-based general aviation operators and providers of 
general aviation ground support services must submit to the Department 
to obtain compensation. The title, description, and respondent 
description of the information collections are shown below as well as 
an estimate of the annual recordkeeping and periodic reporting burden. 
Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Title: Procedures (and Form) for Reimbursement of General Aviation 
Operators and Service Providers in Washington, DC Area.
    Need for Information: The information is required to administer the 
requirements of the Act.
    Use of Information: The Department of Transportation would use the 
data submitted by the fixed-based general aviation operators and 
providers of general aviation ground support services to determine 
their reimbursement for direct and incremental financial losses 
incurred while the airports were closed due to Federal Government 
actions taken after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
    Frequency: For this final rule, the Department would collect the 
information once from fix-based general aviation operators and 
providers of general aviation ground support services.
    Respondents: The respondents include an estimated 24 fixed-based 
general aviation operators and providers of general aviation ground 
support service. This estimate is based on the number of fixed-based 
general aviation operators and providers of general aviation ground 
support services identified in the October 2005 DOT study.
    Burden Estimate: Total applicant burden of between $2,501 and 
$5,003 based on a burden of between three (3) and six (6) hours per 
applicant and a weighted average cost per hour of $34.74.
    Form(s): The data would be collected on the Form entitled, 
``Background and Eligibility Information for Applicants Filing for 
Reimbursement Under Section 185 of Public Law 109-115,'' and included 
at Appendix A to this part.
    Average Burden Hours per Respondent: A weighted average of four (4) 
hours per application.
    The Department has requested approval from the Office of Management 
and Budget for this information collection.

Other Statutes and Executive Orders

    There are a number of other statutes and Executive Orders that 
apply to the rulemaking process that the Department must consider in 
all rulemakings, but which the Department has determined are not 
sufficiently implicated by this NPRM to require further action. 
Specifically, this NPRM does not impact the human environment under the 
National Environmental Policy Act, does not concern constitutionally 
protected property rights such that Executive Order 12630 is 
implicated, does not involve policies with tribal implications such the 
Executive Order 13175 is invoked, does not concern civil justice reform 
under Executive Order 12988, does not involve the protection of 
children from environmental risks under Executive Order 13045, and will 
not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year.

Comment Period

    This rule concerns a small group of potential applicants and others 
who might be interested, and the Department believes that most, if not 
all, are aware of the provisions of the statute. The Department 
therefore concludes that 30 days is sufficient time for the receipt of 
comments from the public.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 331

    Air transportation, Airports, Airspace, Claims, Grant programs, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.


    Issued this 19th day of September, 2006, at Washington, DC.
Maria Cino,
Acting Secretary of Transportation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes 
to add 14 CFR